UniqueObjectFieldName validation rule (#1806) #3094
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
bbakerman
approved these changes
Feb 21, 2023
Member
bbakerman
left a comment
bbakerman
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Really great PR - you have copied the style existing code really well
Thanks
| private void checkObjectValue(ObjectValue node) { | ||
| currentRules.forEach(r -> r.checkObjectValue(node)); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Added UniqueObjectFieldName validation rule with a test that covers issue #1806.
This validation might be too broad?